Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
SDCERS Lowers DROP Interest Rate to 3.54 Percent, Says DeMaio
Response to Don's post #34: I was curious to see what JF thought of it, since if the union won't even go that far, there is no point even having a discussion. They have killed the golden goose, and it is time to go to bankruptcy. I think those moves may have been enough if implemented 4 years ago when Sanders first took office, but I agree with you that they are much too little in the face of the current economy and are years too late. The fact that it seems perfectly reasonable to JF for a typical safety employee to retire at 52 with a 75% pension (on a very good salary) is indicative of how out of touch the safety unions are. Their argument that they had to raise their pension multiplier and reduce their retirement age to compete for because the state and other cities were raising theirs, reminds me of the joke a few years back about how all the top NFL teams were signing their star running backs to contracts that guaranteed (for the sake of their egos) that they would be the highest paid running back in the league by one dollar. The joke is what happens when about ten of those contracts took effect in the same off-season! Of course the real answer for the city is to immediately switch to a system based on contributions and investment results, and drop the ridiculous system of defined benefits.— February 28, 2009 6:09 p.m.
SDCERS Lowers DROP Interest Rate to 3.54 Percent, Says DeMaio
JF, I'm not sure which numbers you are referring to, so feel free to link to them. I'm curious how you define a "typical" employee, and how it factors in ex-military (who already have a first pension) and transfers from other public agencies (who either are vested there, or can transfer vesting). Just taking your numbers at face value and assuming a first job with no additional vesting, that would mean that half of the safety employees have a career with the city of 25 years or more. That is a very high number compared to the private sector. It is high even before you consider that a substantial percentage of the 50% who don't make it 25 years either a) didn't make it because of disability (which costs even more), or B) started later due to the reasons cited above. What you are saying is that half of safety personnel currently retire earlier and/or for a higher multiple than your "typical" employee, which is already nearing the maximum retirement benefit. In my scenario, your "typical" employee could either 1) Still retire at age 52, but with a pension of 62.5%, or 2) Enter DROP at 55 at the earliest. Based on your "typical" employee that would be a small enough sacrifice to avoid bankruptcy. I'll also give you a third option: The pension should be dissolved completely, and your SS benefits should be calculated backwards in the same manner as us poor schmucks in the private sector who aren't allowed to opt out. Its funny how the government allows the government to opt out of its own programs because it knows they stink. On top of that, the SPSP match is also better than most private 401Ks (it is 6%for MEA, I don't know if it is the same for fire and POA), which is the only employer supported retirement program left in the real (non-public) world.— February 27, 2009 11:52 a.m.
SD Traffic Congestion Down 46.9% Last Year, Second Biggest U.S. Drop
I commute from Sorrento Valley to North County (which is the good way, against the major traffic each direction). The difference between the summer of 2007 and the summer of 2008 was downright eerie. In the afternoons especially, the freeway in summer of 2007 would be stop and go all the way south, with the alternates along the coast or down El Camino Real and through RSF completely jammed. Last summer I didn't have a single day where the drive wasn't consistently 60 MPH or higher. This fall, every day has been like a holiday. I love the commute, but every day I wonder what happened to everybody, and pray that I still have a job to go back to the next day.— February 27, 2009 10:35 a.m.
SDCERS Lowers DROP Interest Rate to 3.54 Percent, Says DeMaio
DROP was an additional perk for safety employees that really didn't cost too much, but also really shouldn't have been granted. JF's claim of a 15% savings is dubious, when a typical employee can enter the workforce in their early twenties, max out their pension at 90% in their early fifties and then enter drop and retire in their late fifties. JF is correct that there are some savings involved since the city does not pay into the pension for the DROP years and the pension will not include any raises over the last five years of employment. The problem I see is that the multiplier was raised for safety personal AND the retirement age is awfully low. You can't do both. To me the fix is simple, either: 1) Go back to a 2.5% multiplier so that it takes six additional years to reach 90% pension, or 2) Disallow anybody from entering drop if they are at 90%, and raise the retirement age from 50 to 55. (e.g. If you are at 75% pension, you could enter DROP for the full 5 years, but if you were at 84% you could only enter DROP for 2 years). What do you think, JF? The city has to do something with the retirement burden, or the whole thing will be restructured in bankruptcy.— February 27, 2009 10:17 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Hmmmm I'm just wondering what Bill Gates was getting paid with his HS Diploma. ========================================================== Gates also had a 1590 on the SAT, which supposedly puts him at roughly one in a million. Also, I don't believe he ever made an enormous salary ( at least in major company CEO terms), but made the bulk of his fortune through Microsoft stock.— January 19, 2009 9:45 p.m.
Is Moores Jumping Out Just in Time Again?
Speaking of jumping out just in time, according to the VoSD and the UT recently: (From the VoSD): "After 18 months of negotiations, Ballpark Village, the $1.4 billion proposal to build a large convention hotel adjacent to Petco Park, will start anew. JMI Realty, Padres owner John Moores' development company, has terminated negotiations on the project to eliminate any threat of litigation stemming from the involvement of Nancy Graham, the former Centre City Development Corp. president who resigned in July." How convenient is that? Financials have tanked and the building boom downtown has cratered, but the reason for scrapping the deal is Nancy Graham. Yeah, right. I wonder what obligations CCDC let JMI out of by scrapping this deal?— January 15, 2009 7:54 a.m.
LA Times Editor Says Online Ad Revenue Enough to Cover Entire Print and Online Payroll
They'll cut the IT people first. You always cut first what you don't understand.— January 15, 2009 7:43 a.m.
Chargers' Fabiani Admits in Article That San Diego Is Bankrupt or Heading in That Direction
Don, Speaking of sports subsidies: There was an article in the VoSD today that discusses the Padres sale and the fact the a full 1/4 of the value of the Padres is the stadium the city paid for. http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/01/1…— January 12, 2009 3:21 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
JustWondering, I believe that Don is a participant in the conversation, not the moderator. This is essentially an unmoderated discussion. This and past disagreements have stayed largely civil, and hopefully that can continue so formal active moderation is not required. If moderation ever is required, I would think it would be somebody else at the Reader, not Don.— January 9, 2009 9:42 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
JF said: "Here's my question of you: Are you willing to pay more for that station?" No, I am willing to pay less for that station. That was the whole point. A new fire station would cost a fraction of what the unneeded bridge would cost, yet Chief Jarman was there lobbying for the bridge. The mayor can fire the Fire Chief, but the council can override him, and the council has to approve any appointment for a new Fire Chief, so it is not exactly like she serves at his whim. To the degree she does serve at his whim and dances in his dog and pony shows for his rich backers, illustrates that the strong mayor system is an abject failure for the average taxpayer.— January 8, 2009 6:54 p.m.